Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Products

aiqbench analysis

This research benchmarks four commercial depth sensors against complex medical phantoms, identifying the Zivid 2M+ 60 as superior across stereo, structured-light, and time-of-flight modalities for surgical applications. The study highlights critical performance variations based on surface properties like subsurface scattering and specular reflection in a controlled distance of approximately 50 cm. Such empirical comparisons are vital for robotics developers aiming to integrate reliable depth estimation into next-generation medical devices.
Sources coveringarXiv, LessWrong, Quantum Computing Report, SiliconANGLE
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Comparing Commercial Depth Sensor Accuracy for Medical Applications

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2606.13028v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Depth estimation has numerous medical and surgical applications. We benchmark four depth sensors on a porcine bone specimen, a porcine belly specimen, and a silicone kidney phantom using stylus-sampled references. These objects contain several real-world challenges, including homogeneous surfaces, specular surfaces, and subsurface scattering. The comparison includes stereo, structured-light, and time-of-flight sensors at a distance of approximately 50 cm. Specifically, the Intel RealSense D405 (Intel RealSense, United States), PMD Flexx2 (pmdtechnologies, Germany), Stereolabs ZED 2i (Stereolabs, France), and Zivid 2M+ 60 (Zivid, Norway) are compared. The Zivid 2M+ 60 performed best across all objects and metrics considered in this work. The ZED ranked second for real tissue, but last on the phantom.

Abstract:Depth estimation has numerous medical and surgical applications. We benchmark four depth sensors on a porcine bone specimen, a porcine belly specimen, and a silicone kidney phantom using stylus-sampled references. These objects contain several real-world challenges, including homogeneous surfaces, specular surfaces, and subsurface scattering. The comparison includes stereo, structured-light, and time-of-flight sensors at a distance of approximately 50 cm. Specifically, the Intel RealSense D405 (Intel RealSense, United States), PMD Flexx2 (pmdtechnologies, Germany), Stereolabs ZED 2i (Stereolabs, France), and Zivid 2M+ 60 (Zivid, Norway) are compared. The Zivid 2M+ 60 performed best across all objects and metrics considered in this work. The ZED ranked second for real tissue, but last on the phantom.

Robotics (cs.RO); Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV)

arXiv:2606.13028 [cs.RO]

(or arXiv:2606.13028v1 [cs.RO] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.13028 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 211 words

Related coverage